Active Users:751 Time:03/04/2025 05:23:30 AM
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. Datakim Send a noteboard - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM

I see it as a single offensive, or single battle. The idea that it was done in a single weave seems inconsistent from what we've read so far - we've seen Rand, the most powerful channeler in the world, use balefire in battle against Rahvin and Sammael, and it never came close to what was necessary to wipe out a city. Moiraine, one of the strongest Aes Sedai in centuries, wove balefire weak enough that there was some question that Be'lal might be reincarnated despite it. As this is pre-Choedan Kal, I cannot see how it is possible to imagine a weave of balefire capable of eradicating an entire city.


So why is it then, that RJ did not say that. He did not say that a hundred thousand people were killed in a single battle. Or a single offensive. Or during a single day. Those are NOT the words he used. What he said, is "one go", which to me suggests a momentary instant.

And yes, it does seem inconsistent to what we have seen so far, UNLESS there is a way to control balefires width so that you can make it wider than what we have seen, without using insane amounts of strength. Essentially making a wide beam large enough for even a city, that is still weak enough not to burn people back months and instantly destroy the pattern. Which is what I am arguing happened at Graendals palace, minimizing the damage since Rand did not yet want to destroy the pattern.

Moiraine and Rand might not have had the knowledge or the need to do this before. But Rand/LTT at Graendals palace did, so thats what he did.


Also, if you read RJ's quote, you realise that this happened more than once. If in a single weave, how? The quote suggests that the cities were wiped out during conflict between the two sides, that both attackers and defenders were using balefire.


How does the quote suggest that both sides were using balefire? All it says that several cities were balefired. Unless you have a different quote than the one I used?

I figure it was indeed used to wipe a single city in an instant, maybe the other side then retaliated on a different city using the same technique, at which point the pattern started groaning and people realised that maybe this is not such a good idea.


You consider 'a matter of minutes' to be a long period when dealing with eradication of cities? And no, I did mean in one go. I simply interpret that 'go' to be a battle, rather than a weave.


Minutes you say? How will you wipe out a hundred thousand people in minutes in a large city with people going everywhere and hiding and so on and so on. With the defenders fighting back, forcing you to proceed slowly, etc. I think it makes far more sense if the entire city was taken out in one go, with a big blast.

Lets use Rand as an example, his balefire stream was the thickness of a man it is said. Lets say 1 meter thick then.

Lets say you have, oh, 5000 channelers.

Now imagine those channelers in the city, going from house to house, room to room and balefiring people with balefire streams only 1 meter thick. And killing 100K people.

This is something that would not take minutes, it would take days. You don't sack and destroy an entire city in minutes without weapons of mass destruction.

And tell me this, even if it were possible, WHY would they have done this? If they wanted to destroy a city, why would they send in a large group of channelers to wave around their bars of balefire, killing people one by one, rather than just blowing the entire city up in a traditional way. Or even using nuclear weapons or the like.

Why use an inferor weapon like balefire, if you could just use a circle of 72 to annihilate the entire city in a fireball.

No, the only reason to use balefire is if it was even better than that. And having huge groups of channelers roaming the city would not be. The only logical explanation is that the AoLers could indeed use balefire to wipe out an entire city in an instant. That is why it was so feared.


Could you present that evidence to me?


I already have and you know it. RJ said so. You can disagree what he meant, in which case there is nothing to do but either agree to disagree, or try to ask BS if there is anything in the notes saying if the balefired cities were wiped out in an instant or if it took days.

My view is to believe that RJ was literal and his "one go" does mean exactly that. One go. One blast. 100K balefired in an instant. And that requires a balefire blast that is very wide. Suggesting that width can be controlled. Which is my argument.
Reply to message
Rand the psycho? - 06/01/2010 02:53:30 AM 1583 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 983 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 979 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1006 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 909 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 822 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 939 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 853 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM 820 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM 775 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM 763 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 730 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 757 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 740 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 897 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 806 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 864 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 746 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 841 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 778 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 772 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 765 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 874 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 888 Views
Re: Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 04:16:12 PM 802 Views
But... - 06/01/2010 04:34:02 PM 916 Views
Re: But... - 06/01/2010 06:14:25 PM 725 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 765 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM 405 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes. - 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM 792 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 794 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 761 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM* - 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM 442 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 740 Views
Hah! *NM* - 07/01/2010 12:06:07 AM 376 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:20 AM 750 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 725 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 859 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM 776 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM 812 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 810 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 794 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 793 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 816 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 772 Views
Meh. I just think advocating mass-murder is the opposite direction RJ meant for this to take. - 07/01/2010 12:00:44 AM 822 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 712 Views
you are kidding right? - 07/01/2010 12:19:58 AM 803 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM 782 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 793 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM 808 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM 749 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 821 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 754 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM 694 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS! - 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM 872 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 806 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 781 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 742 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 798 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 705 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 730 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 882 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 728 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 733 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 813 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 754 Views
I do have to guiltily say, though, that if Rand had balefired the Seanchan and THEN became good... - 07/01/2010 12:03:20 AM 786 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 866 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 735 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM 737 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 803 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 741 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 886 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 839 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument. - 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM 794 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people - 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM 827 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 722 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 829 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 768 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM 815 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM 738 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 812 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 05:56:16 PM 973 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 18/01/2010 01:00:23 PM 1081 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 705 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 750 Views

Reply to Message